judge

Hi again Dr X,
I am happy to discuss further the evidence within the texts themselves, but I hope you have improved your arguments since here,

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=61612

where you apparently argue that as the greek version of Romans contains greek words it was therefore originally written in greek!!?


Have you come up with any thing better yet apart from quoting scholars fond of the word "probably"?

Lets look at the details of your arguments. It's time to get specific

Doctor X

Should you actually read the arguments rather than miscast them into argumetum ad veritatem obfuscandam you might actually learn something. Quotes based on the LXX rather than the Hebrew texts remains significant.

Had you read the posts rather you would have found no "probably." You would have found that it rebutted your willful misinformation.

However, as stated, unless you are willing to submit your unsubstantiated claims to peer-review, I cannot take your fallacy or insults seriously.

For some reason, you have failed to do this. Is it because you have nothing to add but misinformation, personal faith, and fallacy? Since you have offered nothing else, I am afraid that is the only conclusion a reasonable reader may draw.

Or, to quote it more eloquently: Put up or shut up.

--J.D.

judge

OK here is an example of where we have a footnote in the english versions.
Tehe footnote is there because the greek mss do not agree with each other.

1 Peter 3:13 ?
This verse conatins an aramaic word which has more than one meaning. According to the comprehensive Aramaic lexion the possible meanings areas follows.
Tnn N Tnn)
1 Syr zeal
2 Syr envy
Tnn V
021 JLAGal to moisten
Tnn#2 V
011 Syr to be aroused
012 Syr to be zealous
013 Syr %b% to envy
014 Syr %b% to imitate
041 Syr to come to envy
021 Syr to arouse someone's zeal
051 Syr to suffer from zeal
031 Syr to arouse someone's envy
032 Syr to make to emulate
Tnn A
1 Syr zealous
2 Syr champion
3 Syr emulator
4 Syr envious
So, any translator would have to decide which of these meanings is the correct one. Some translators thopught Peterr meant to be zealous and some thought he meant to imitate.
The DARBY says: “And who shall injure you if ye have become imitators of that which good?�
The NASB says: “Who is there to harm you if you prove zealous for what is good?�
Versions that say imitators, followers or a variation thereof: ALT, DARBY, Geneva, KJ21, KJV, LITV, MKJV, NKJV, Webster, WYC, YLT.
Versions that say zealous, eager, or a variation thereof: AMP, ASV, CEV, Douay-Rheims, ESV, NASB, NIV, NIV-UK, NLT, Rotherham, RSV, TEV, Weymouth.
Don't you imagine if the Aramaic were translated from the greek this would be happening the other way?
Wouldn't we expect to find variance in the aramaic and uniformity in the greek?
Again, though why is it that it coincidentally happnes right in the place where the Aramaic has more than one meaning?


Now it is time for you to "put up".
Do you have any evidence at all, anything at all to indicate the NT was written first in greek?
It appears you are the one with "blind faith". You have faith that the NT was first penned in greek but you have no evidence to back it up.
Except that the oldest known mss are in greek.
But as i have indicated before, prior to the discovery of the dead sea scrolls the oldest OT were in greek also.:boohoo:

Space Chef

Similar thing in Islamic history...

There were different Qurans lying around, and one caliph or something decided which one was the authentic one. The word of Allah.

They burned all the other Qurans.

Amlodhi

Hello Steven,

Please check your P.M.

Thanks

Amlodhi

Steven Carr

There are still different Qurans, although the differences are miniscule.

There were 7 readings of the Qur'an

by Nafi of Medina
by Ibn Kathir of Mecca
by Ibn Amir of Damascus
by Abu Amr of Basra
by Asim of Kufa
by Hamza of Kufa
by Al-Kisai of Kufa

Nowadays it seems that there are two main readings . The one by Asim of Kufa was adopted in the Egyptian edition in 1924 and the reading by Nafi is used in parts of Africa , other than Egypt. The differences between these Qurans are very small. For example , there may be a 'fa' rather than a 'wa', but they do exist.

The differences are very small indeed, but they are greater than the Islamic excuse that they are just different vocalisations of the words.

Doctor X

Quoting differences in English translations and not the Greek texts demonstrates failure to appreciate the textual critical issues, particularly in a late text such a Peter which is, Heavens to Betsy, not Mk.

If the individual wishes to formally write that up as his evidence for Aramaic priority for the Synoptics and Jn then I am more than happy to see that it will receive a peer-review. Until then, he remains a waste of time.

Before doing that I would suggest the individual consult the volumes referenced above which discuss the issue of Greek primacy. I am under no obligation to do his homework for him, or re-invent the scholarly wheel to correct his bias.

I will note, en passant no recognition of, let allow rebuttal of, the discussion of the Syriac witnesses, particularly the Peshitta, quoted above. No discussion of the lateness of the witnesses. Absent is recognition that Aramaic primacy had been the assumption over a hundred years ago, prior to modern textual criticism. The references address this, if he would do his homework.

Finally, a responsible review of the textual criticism of the Hebrew texts, with particular attention to extra-biblical works would correct the misinformation given here.

Steve:

Here is a link to an article a friend sent me some time ago on textual issues with the Quran you might enjoy.

What is the Koran?

--J.D.

judge

Greek texts differ here.
P72 has zelotai.
textus receptus has mimetai

Doctor X

The Textus Recepticus is not used in Modern Textual Criticism since it is based upon the late Byzantine texts and did not have the benefit of the discoveries of papyri and various important Codices such as Vaticanus.

This, of course, is made clear in the references.

However, if the individual wishes to add his non sequitur to his paper I am sure it will not detract from its overall worth. . . .

--J.D.

spin

The gospel of Mark, whose Greek is quite bad, was written for a Roman audience as it mentions a number of Roman words, sometimes supplied as explanations. You'll remember the spirit calling itself "Legion" and the palace in 15:16 which is explained to be a "praetorium" -- naturally a Greek speaker didn't need a Roman explanation, and had Aramaic/Syriac been the original language neither would it have been necessary for the Aramaic audience, yet it appears transliterated, ie rendered letter for letter, in the Peshitta, as PR+WRYN [the "+" is the letter TET], just as the denarius is in 6:37, though the coins in Judea were shekels and prutahs -- and there are examples of prutahs issued by each of the proconsuls on sale on internet now. We have to face the fact that people beating the Aramaic priority drum are simply not guided by evidence.

Another fine example of Roman Mark is the mention of a Roman soldier called a speculator ("spekoulator") in 6:27, translated as "guard". This appears as 'SPWQL+R', a garbled form of the Greek form of the Latin.

When Jesus is whipped the word in Greek fragellow borrowed from the Latin flagellare. In the Peshitta Mk 15:15 one doesn't find a transliteration (but a translation NGD), but in Mt 27:26, which also uses fragellow, the Peshitta supplies, not a transliteration of the Latin flagellare (with the letter L), but of the Greek fragellow -- noting that the F becomes a P in the Aramaic (which has no F), BPRGL'. The Aramaic form has come from the Greek, not the Latin directly.

In each example above the trajectory is from Latin to Greek to Aramaic, so judge is flagellating a dead horse when he advocates that Aramaic had priority.

The reason why Aramaic is popular is based on old ideas that Aramaic had superceded Hebrew as the daily language of Judea, but this is not correct. Although there was a strong Aramaic presence, Hebrew was still alive and well, as demonstrated by the vast majority of texts from Qumran being written in Hebrew. This Hebrew was a living language as we can see the writers attempting to give phonetic representations of words rather than the simple biblical forms. Texts from the Bar-Kochba period (circa 132 CE) were found in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. So, there was a mix in languages in the area. Why Aramaic? Because people didn't know enough about Judea when they theorized about it.

We are left with a few Aramaic mumbo-jumbo words such as talitha kumi ("little girl, come") and other such trivial examples of Aramaic, showing a penchant to tart up the text with a little foreign lingo rather than to give meaningful things provided in Aramaic.

Interestingly, one finds talitha kumi, +LYT' QWMY, in the Peshitta; now had the gospel writers had the Aramaic, why would they choose such trivial phrases to render into Greek when supposedly they had a full Aramaic text? Obviously because they didn't have such a text, but reports by a few people who supplied the Aramaic phrase.


spin